I was referred to this article by a friend http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca. Apparently the Mises Institute and those who adhere to its principles are merely a bunch of bigots. Is this for real?
No it's not.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
The characterization of the Mises Institute in that article is absurd, as a glance through the Mises.org shows. Yes, the Mises Institute held a conference on the idea of secessionism in light of the falling apart of the Soviet Union. The conference explored the classical liberal idea of people separating from states, and the result was a scholarly book that is on sale in the store. (We would post it but we didn't publish it so there are copyright issues).
Mises himself, of course, proposed secession as a way out of post World War I political conflicts. The racial element comes into play only in the American context, and several papers in that volume tried to show that it is possible to support secession and opppose slavery, which of course libertarianism and Austrian theory are completely dedicated to eradicating in all its forms. In other words, the article itself is refuted by the evidence of the whole history of the Mises Institute.
As for the rest of the article, Ron has completely separated himself from those quoted comments. In any case, the Mises Insitute is a non-political organization.
Publisher, Laissez-Faire Books
Forgive the initial phrasing of the question I posted for I what I meant to express was merely that it's proposterous and outright insane to consider the admirerers and members of the Mises Institute as bigots of any sort. What's particularly interesting is that this article demonstrates that, once again, the substance of the arguments possessed by many self proclaimed conservatives are such that they must resort to the tactic of character degradation. As is so often the case however, the attacks themselves are false, revealing even more the incompetence of the party which produced them.
I know the question is rhetorical, but to address it all the same, no.
At the very worst, Paul is guilty of not being careful of what was said in his eponymous newsletter, and not being the final approver. He took responsibility for that. It's a far stretch to say that publication mismanagment = racism, but trying explaing that to a Leftist lunatic.
The thing is, even TNR's article says as much. They freely admit that none of these hatful words can be directly attributed to Paul—and anyone with a mind for free inquiry can compare this borderline conspiracy theory to Pauls vasious books, congressional statements, and other actions and know that he's no racist.
But just try to make that defense anywhere, and see if you don't get labeled a racist yourself.
Inquisitor:Unless certain LVMI scholars were willing to adopt force to impose their ideals, it should not matter one way or the other what they believe, so long as they believe in the non-aggression axiom. Accusations of racism are a typical 'progressive' slur used to silence debate. Of course, these accusations are pure fiction - yet even if they weren't, they are little but ad hominem attacks, of a sort.
But who, outside of the libertarians, are familiar with the non-aggression axiom?
You're correct about "racist" being a slur. When someone calls you a racist, the debate always turns into the accused defending his or her character instead of actually following through with the debate. Normally, this wouldn't matter. But in debates that do, the accusation of racism is enough to bias popular opnion against the accused.
I'm sure everyone's been there. Try keeping someone's attention after you've criticized affirmative action, or the Civil War, or the Civil Rights Act.
I'm a fan of Ron Paul and I don't believe he is a racist -- that is not really the issue -- but you have to admit it doesn't look good if people are publishing things under your name for decades that you don't endorse. I should also note that some of the mainstream media reaction is political correctness, or in the case of secession totally off-base, but some is deserving criticism. (By the way, does it really matter that TNR is a statist magazine (which one isn't?) or that it's a deliberate hit-piece?)
I may be shunned for mentioned this but hey you guys don't know me anyway. Dare I say it is likely the writers have written for or are affiliated with LewRockwell.com? Surely someone knows the history of these newsletters, is anyone talking about it anywhere?
I've read most of the "racist" articles from the newsletter that TNR provide. Its compeletely overblown when you read them in context. Didn't read any of the Trilateral Commisson stuff. Most seem to be written by the same person, with a few exceptions (like the LA riot piece). My guess is that Paul wrote most, they were typical writings you'd find on any internet board at the time from libertarians of a certain perspective. No big deal to a long term libertarian though I can see in our current environment how people might view them as racist (I don't).
Ron Paul is not a racist. He is the opposite of a racist -- an explicit advocate of individualism.
When the New Republic hit piece by Kirchick first appeared, I created the following video in response and posted it on YouTube. It has since gotten quite a bit of attention and has since convinced quite a few people that not only are Kirchick's allegations false, but that he has also committed a breach of journalistic etiquette in bringing them forward on the day of the New Hampshire primary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHypVjosDk8
Sincerely,
Gennady Stolyarov II
Editor-in-Chief, The Rational Argumentator: http://rationalargumentator.com
edward_1313:I was referred to this article by a friend http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca. Apparently the Mises Institute and those who adhere to its principles are merely a bunch of bigots.
Note: Whenever words like "racist" are used, you can be pretty sure that it is an attempt to smear someone. When your warning lights are going on, you should ask yourself: 1. Is someone using loaded terminology? 2. Are the words clearly defined and are they expressing anything relevant and meaingful?
If the answer is YES to 1 and/or NO to 2 you can be sure that someone is following a polemical or deceptive approach. In the past decades the word "racist" has become something like "heretic" or "witch" in earlier ages.
G. Stolyarov II:Ron Paul is not a racist. He is the opposite of a racist -- an explicit advocate of individualism. When the New Republic hit piece by Kirchick first appeared, I created the following video in response and posted it on YouTube. It has since gotten quite a bit of attention and has since convinced quite a few people that not only are Kirchick's allegations false, but that he has also committed a breach of journalistic etiquette in bringing them forward on the day of the New Hampshire primary. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHypVjosDk8
Excellent video, everything you said was right on point.
I do wander what the best way to combat accusations like this is, really. When this first "broke," I tried to point people who had bad things to say about Paul in the direction of Mises.org, and they flat out refused, saying they wouldn't go to a racist website. Other times, in discussions about healthcare, I've linked to articles on Mises, and people flat out refused to even read the content, saying that they wouldn't trust a "right-wing think tank." The irony is that they are more than willing to lap up whatever drivel a "non think-tank" like TNR offers.
More on Ron and racism. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740
One thing that is driving me crazy about Ron Paul's campaign are the inconsistencies in what he's saying. He was just on Wolf Blitzer's show talking about how the drug laws discriminate against "the blacks", and uses statistics to back it up their incarceration rate (like in the LA riot piece, but I won't go into that). But then, I also see him doing interviews where he uses 'drug dealers' as the heavy (eg: children born of illegal aliens, 'drug dealers will cross the border have children that will be citizens'). Huh? In a Ron Paul USofA, drug dealing isn't a crime, right? And I know he's walking a tight rope on other issues, but one's that are consistent with libertarian principles. This one stands out as one that doesn't.
Lest we forget who the TRUE racists are.
Robert "KKK" Byrd. Democratic Senator from West Virginia.
Quotes therefrom:
"Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
"I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side."
The esteemed Senator was a Grand Wizard of the KKK at one point.
Funny, how this NEVER comes up in the press. :)
I listen to Ron Paul and I do not hear any racism in what he says. Looking at his career as a doctor and as a politician I can find no racists behaviors. My feeling is that is isn't a racist.
I do believe that people fear what he says and will use any means they have to try to discredit his message which is Pro-Individual, Pro-Liberty, Pro-Free Markets, Pro-Peace, Pro-America/Anti-American-Empire.
Mark B.:Lest we forget who the TRUE racists are. Robert "KKK" Byrd. Democratic Senator from West Virginia.Quotes therefrom: "Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds." "I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side."The esteemed Senator was a Grand Wizard of the KKK at one point. Funny, how this NEVER comes up in the press. :)
Exactly. That IS racism. Nothing I read in those newsletters is anything like that.
STT: More on Ron and racism. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740
This is old news, and an equally nonsensical smear. In fact, the New York times repeated most of those alligations, and since even the fools who still consider the Times "the paper of record" could see though it, they offered a retraction and apology.
Kent C:But then, I also see him doing interviews where he uses 'drug dealers' as the heavy
If we end the "war on drugs" then there will be no drug dealers as we know them now. The drug dealers would be just like current liquor store owners. So there is no inconsistency in despising current drug dealers and also despising current drug laws.
Kent C:One thing that is driving me crazy about Ron Paul's campaign are the inconsistencies in what he's saying. He was just on Wolf Blitzer's show talking about how the drug laws discriminate against "the blacks", and uses statistics to back it up their incarceration rate (like in the LA riot piece, but I won't go into that). But then, I also see him doing interviews where he uses 'drug dealers' as the heavy (eg: children born of illegal aliens, 'drug dealers will cross the border have children that will be citizens'). Huh? In a Ron Paul USofA, drug dealing isn't a crime, right? And I know he's walking a tight rope on other issues, but one's that are consistent with libertarian principles. This one stands out as one that doesn't.
I saw the Blizter interview, and I had a similar feeling. I think a lot of it has to do with the complete derailing of debate that accusations of racism cause, and the reactionary way people tend to defend their characters.
Granted, he made a valid point, and could have articulated it in a way that didn't contradict his philosophy: our justice system is simply not fair, and minorities suffer the most at the hand of that unfairness. Furthurmore, the drug war is essentially used as a tool to keep minorities "in check," when the real statistics are that rates of drug use have nothing to do with skin color.
Karen de Coster has an excellent piece on this whole controversy:
http://www.karendecoster.com/blog/archives/002710.html
Inquisitor: Karen de Coster has an excellent piece on this whole controversy: http://www.karendecoster.com/blog/archives/002710.html
Ms. DeCoster did a marvelous job showing how one obscure critic is a half-witted, illiterate coward. Very well done. I noticed, however, that she made no mention of the half-witted garbage found in some of those newsletters and the fact that the actual author of those things, like that critic she condemns, still hasn't come forward to identify him/herself and take responsibility for what s/he wrote. And on what basis does she presume to frame this as part of the ongoing feud between the Mises people and the Beltway-libertarians as though this is the only frame through which to view it? Isn't it possible that there are a lot of libertarians not remotely associated with the Beltway-libertarian camp who are a bit troubled by all this precisely because of their respect for the Mises Institute and Lew Rockwell?
You're going to have to deal with this issue sooner or later, folks. Deflecting focus to the inferior writing and thinking ability of some obscure blogger only evades the issue. It's no one's business to tell you how to deal with it, but at least acknowledge that there is an issue.
See Wendy McElroy's open letter to the "newsletter writer"
Deus,
I agree that the allegations are serious. I think, to our unending chagrin, that racists will always leach onto the libertarian movement because it in the way it benefits everyone, it also gives them freedom of thought, and freedom to express those thoughts.
A racist libertarian, however, is like a square circle; such a person cannot exist. We need to get THAT message out in the light of this negative attention.
Sweet Mercury: A racist libertarian, however, is like a square circle; such a person cannot exist. We need to get THAT message out in the light of this negative attention.
Used to think that too, not so sure anymore.
I mean that in a purely definitional sense. There are people who call themselves libertarians, then procede to judge people in the manner suitable only to collectivist reasoning, that's true. Be we should be clear on the point, when it comes up, that to judge people based on race is the antithesis of the libertarian position.
I took the time to read the one article I was able to locate in its entirety.The article, on the LA riots, appeared to be directed specifically toward black racism and the use of welfare. One would infer from reading it that the writer held a bias against blacks.Can this be defended? September 11th was followed by widespread calls for a nuclear genocide of Middle Eastern Muslims. There was no shortage of hate towards people of arabic decent in general. Given the aftermath of the LA riots, I would imagine a similar attitude prevailed. Even the other night John McCain felt comfortable enough to pass a questionable joke, during a live debate. This same candidate is on video singing a song about bombing Iran, something I find profoundly offensive and disturbing. Perhaps 15 years out many of these same people will find themselves in an uncomfortable position over what they have said.It is clear to me that Ron Paul has used poor judgement as to the people he as chosen to associate himself with. If he did not write these articles, somewhere down the road, someone he appointed made those judgement calls. Those seeking to discredit Ron Paul have fixated on his association with conspiracy theorists and white supremacists.Additionally, this fiasco shows poor judgement with how he chose to let his name be used -- presuming that he never at any time believed these things. Failure to provide proper oversight in all of one's business interests may be excusable, but what is written and published under your name is not. Most certainly when it is in print.Until a clear line is drawn by none other than Ron Paul, I will not endorse him or give his campaign money. Real answers are required; not vague spin. Caution must be exercised at all times as many use the banner of "liberty" to push forward authoritarian ideals.
By the way, if anyone has copies of articles written by Ron Paul in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s that would contradict the statements made in these newsletters it would be very much appreciated.
Deus X. Nihilo:But when you start reading an analysis of the L.A. riots of ’92 that is couched in collectivist racial terms of “the blacks” and “the whites”, I would think this should raise a red flag or two. When you read that “the blacks” only went home after collecting welfare checks, it is not wholly improper or far-fetched to criticize the premise underlying that analysis. The writer of that piece says that only a small percentage of blacks support sound politics like free markets and individual rights. Well I can certainly tell you that here in the Midwest only a small percentage of whites support such ideas. Most white people I know (and being one, I know quite a few) are all for expanded government and state privilege so long as it benefits them and keeps the untermenschen out of their sight.
Be careful, when dealing with labels like "individualist", "collectivist", (I already came to "racist" earlier) and the like. There can be methodological, ideological and attitudial individualism or collectivism. Austrian economics is about methodological individualism, while many libertarians are actually individualists in ideology and attitude. Within a libertarian society people with a more collectivist/cooperative attitude will have a competetive advantage over those pure individualists. I think Nisbeth had something to write about this issue and he has been described as a communitarian libertarian.
Torsten:You do btw. talk in quite a similar manner later on.
Torsten, you're misunderstanding my point: I can't infer any more about the political attitudes of "whites" based on a narrow sampling of white people's stated opinions than the newsletter's author(s) can about "the blacks."
Um, "people with a more collectivist/cooperative attitude will have a competitive advantage over...pure individualists?" Are you seriously claiming that individualists don't value cooperation? That self-described individualists are necessarily atomists? Perhaps that's not what you're claiming, but I don't understand what you mean by "pure" individualism. One of the most common misconceptions of individualism is that it proposes that individualists be cut off from everyone else. It may be that atomists describe themselves as individualists, but it doesn't necessarily follow that all self-described individualists are atomists. My understanding of individualism is that individuals should simply be free to choose with whom to cooperate and associate. And on what basis are you presuming that collectivists and individualists are in "competition" with one another as groups? (And I would point out that there's no basis to your claim that collectivist groups have some kind of "competitive advantage" over individualist groups anyway, at least when there clearly is competition between such groups. The US government was relatively more respectful of individualism to a much greater degree than the Soviet regime, and as you may have heard, the Soviet regime collapsed.)
I suppose my methodological individualism is much "thicker" than yours. Mine isn't limited to economics.
I've always thought that individualism applies to other things such as nationality and race as well (I.E. I consider racism and nationalism to be forms of collectivism that no consistant individualist can ideologically support).
Brainpolice:I suppose my methodological individualism is much "thicker" than yours. Mine isn't limited to economics. I've always thought that individualism applies to other things such as nationality and race as well (I.E. I consider racism and nationalism to be forms of collectivism that no consistant individualist can ideologically support).
That's my conviction, yes.
That's true. Judging someone as nothing more than the member of an arbitrary group (race, national origin) is absolutely a kind of collectivism.
But seeing that people act according to their own collectivist beliefs isn't.
Deus X. Nihilo:Um, "people with a more collectivist/cooperative attitude will have a competitive advantage over...pure individualists?" Are you seriously claiming that individualists don't value cooperation? That self-described individualists are necessarily atomists? Perhaps that's not what you're claiming, but I don't understand what you mean by "pure" individualism.
As for the comparison of the US and the Soviet Union. Traditionally the US state didn't take over the responsibility for his subjects. The individuals had to take care of themselfes, hence they had to rely more on their own initiative and on other members of the communitiy. That's why your civil society was pretty well developed. Since the state took care of "everything" in the Soviet Union one could be far more anti social and lead an "individualist" lifestyle their, as long as it wasn't conflicting with the party line or the state itself.
I don't care if one labels something individualist, collectivist, atomist or whatever. But in reality it plays quite a role which social environment you are acting in. Your own capacity of acting place a role, but the norms of society and those acting in it play a role as well. Relating this back to the subject of national policy(i.e. US politics) one must ask how the social environement of the nation should be organized. Should access be limited to citizens complying with certain criteria or should any individual of the world be allowed to have full access and rights with in the territory and society of the nation (i.e. the US)?! This is merely a question of criteria for access and lets face it, during history racial and/or religious criteria played a role for allowing people access to a society or polity. Both poles of the debate are btw. not distinguished by "collectivism" or something like that. If you want the one is just a bit more limited "collectivism" then the other. One could start with collectivism at his family/marriage and one could extend to an outer limit of including any individual or even creature of this planet.
Here is some interesting mp3 on the subject of libertarianism and communitarianism
http://www.mises.org/MultiMedia/mp3/bb05/Stone-06-29-2005.mp3
Brainpolice:I've always thought that individualism applies to other things such as nationality and race as well (I.E. I consider racism and nationalism to be forms of collectivism that no consistant individualist can ideologically support).
One can be a methodological individualist, while acknowledging that individuals tend to act in the context of social entities like family, tribe, nation, class or race.
...and hence you favour a form of universalist collectivism that allows individualist rights for any individual anywhere on this planet in an equal way.
Universalism does not equate to collectivism. All I do is apply individualism universally (I.E. to, gasp, all individuals). Otherwise, it is inconsistant and devolves into some kind of groupism in which people are treated as having a different set of rights depending on their group-identity. Would you call Rothbard a collectivist because he favored universal self-ownership? Is that (human/individual rights, as opposed to the inconsistancy of group rights) really collectivist? I'm also an ethical/rational egoist, but I apply it universally. It would fall under the category of "universalist egoism" I suppose, if that makes any sense to you.
Yes. But what's collectivist is to treat them as being defined by group membership, rather then the group being defined by the cumulative result of the individuals that make it up. Those social entities do not really exist as anything more then aggregations of individuals. The fact that someone is born into a particular family, territory or ethnicity does not deterministically or fatalistically define them in the absolute as an individual. Nor do they have any unchosen positive obligations to such groups that they did not choose to be a part of in the first place. People do not choose these things. An individual is defined by their choices and the traits that they are born with. But these social entities are not uniform, so the traits they are born with are not entirely defined by such social entities.
The problem with racism and nationalism as ideologies is that they do view people this way. Nationalists seem to think that you have an obligation to a non-existant entity of a nation. Racists seem to think that you are defined deterministically by what ethnicity you're born into and that you have an obligation to your "race". Individual identity and rational self-interest is lost and replaced by blind loyalty to groups. You must sacrifice yourself to the "greater good": the "good" of the mythological group, the nation, the race, the tribe, the family. This is cultism. And it's entirely incompatible with my understanding of self-interest.
I'm rather surprised that this has gone from defense of Ron Paul against charges of racism to some people trying to make an actual defense of racism and nationalism.
There is another article taht appeared yesterday on Reason.com it talks about Lew and Murray wrting those articles.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/124426.html
Thanks for the report on the activities of the ever-vigilant thought police.
What if statements are racist but true? Again, I don't think the bulk of things said in the newsletters actually qualify as "racist" though they are ethnocentric. But on the LA Riot piece, it was back up with statistics and most of what was said was true, if not politically correct. We are to ignore facts?